There is little good quality evidence on social and ethnic inequalities in attendance for antenatal care in the United Kingdom. Recommendations for further research are suggested.

OBJECTIVE -Almost 90% of type 1 diabetes appears in individuals without a close family history. We sought to evaluate the best current predictive strategy, multiple defined autoantibodies, in a long-term prospective study in the general population. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS -Autoantibodies to pancreatic islets (islet cellantibodies [ICAs]) and defined autoantibodies (d-aab) to human GAD, IA2/ICA512, and insulin were tested in 4,505 Washington schoolchildren. Eight years later, 3,000 (67%) subjects were recontacted, including 97% of subjects with any test Ͼ99th percentile.RESULTS -Six subjects developed diabetes (median interval 2.8 years), all from among the 12 individuals with multiple d-aab, representing 50% positive predictive value (95% CI 25-75%) and 100% sensitivity (58 -100%). Among the others, diabetes occurred in 0 of 6 with one d-aab plus ICA, 0 of 26 with ICA only, 0 of 7 with one d-aab equaling the 99th percentile and another d-aab equaling the 97.5th percentile, 0 of 86 with one d-aab, and 0 of 2,863 with no d-aab or ICA. Adjusted for verification bias, multiple d-aab were 99.9% specific (99.86 -99.93%). At this age, new d-aab seldom appeared. Once present, d-aab usually persisted regardless of disease progression, although less so for insulin autoantibodies. Insulin secretion by sequential glucose tolerance testing remained normal in four multiple d-aab subjects not developing diabetes. Of children developing diabetes, five of six (83%) would be included if HLA-DQ genotyping preceded antibody testing, but HLA-DQ did not explain outcomes among high-risk subjects, even when considered along with other genetic markers.CONCLUSIONS -Multiple d-aab were established by age 14 years and prospectively identified all schoolchildren who developed type 1 diabetes within 8 years. Diabetes Care 25:505-511, 2002T ype 1 diabetes is an organ-specific autoimmune disease with aberrant immune responses to specific ␤-cell autoantigens. Worldwide incidence appears to be increasing (1). Prevention is important because diabetes interrupts normal development in children and carries the threat of severe complications in the most active period of life (2).Both environmental and genetic factors play etiological roles. The most informative genetic locus, HLA class II, confers about half of the total genetic risk (3) but has low positive predictive value (PPV) when used alone in the general population (4,5). Autoantibodies provide a practical readout of ␤-cell autoimmunity, are easily sampled in venous blood, and have become a mainstay of type 1 diabetes prediction efforts. Initially described in terms of the islet cell antibody (ICA) immunofluorescence assay on pancreatic sections, autoantibodies are now often described in terms of defined ICA target antigens, such as insulin (6,7), GAD (8), and the tyrosine phosphatase homologue IA2/ICA512 (9 -11). Autoantibodies are useful to detect developing type 1 diabetes in close relatives of diabetic patients, whose risk is ϳ3%. However, most cases are sporadic rather than familial (...

BackgroundEnglish maternity care policy has supported offering women choice of birth setting for over twenty years, but only 13% of women in England currently give birth in settings other than obstetric units (OUs). It is unclear why uptake of non-OU settings for birth remains relatively low. This paper presents a synthesis of qualitative evidence which explores influences on women’s experiences of birth place choice, preference and decision-making from the perspectives of women using maternity services.MethodsQualitative evidence synthesis of UK research published January 1992-March 2015, using a ‘best-fit’ framework approach. Searches were run in seven electronic data bases applying a comprehensive search strategy. Thematic framework analysis was used to synthesise extracted data from included studies.ResultsTwenty-four papers drawing on twenty studies met the inclusion criteria. The synthesis identified support for the key framework themes. Women’s experiences of choosing or deciding where to give birth were influenced by whether they received information about available options and about the right to choose, women’s preferences for different services and their attributes, previous birth experiences, views of family, friends and health care professionals and women’s beliefs about risk and safety. The synthesis additionally identified that women’s access to choice of place of birth during the antenatal period varied. Planning to give birth in OU was straightforward, but although women considering birth in a setting other than hospital OU were sometimes well-supported, they also encountered obstacles and described needing to ‘counter the negativity’ surrounding home birth or birth in midwife-led settings.ConclusionsOver the period covered by the review, it was straightforward for low risk women to opt for hospital birth in the UK. Accessing home birth was more complex and contested. The evidence on freestanding midwifery units (FMUs) is more limited, but suggests that women wanting to opt for an FMU birth experienced similar barriers. The extent to which women experienced similar problems accessing alongside midwifery units (AMUs) is unclear.Women’s preferences for different birth options, particularly for ‘hospital’ vs non-hospital settings, are shaped by their pre-existing values, beliefs and experience, and not all women are open to all birth settings.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12884-017-1279-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundIn England, there is a policy of offering healthy women with straightforward pregnancies a choice of birth setting. Options may include home or a freestanding midwifery unit (FMU). Transfer rates from these settings are around 20%, and higher for nulliparous women. The duration of transfer is of interest because of the potential for delay in access to specialist care and is also of concern to women. We aimed to estimate the duration of transfer in births planned at home and in FMUs and explore the effects of distance and urgency on duration.MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of data collected in a national prospective cohort study including 27,842 ‘low risk’ women with singleton, term, ‘booked’ pregnancies, planning birth in FMUs or at home in England from April 2008 to April 2010. We described transfer duration using the median and interquartile range, for all transfers and those for reasons defined as potentially urgent or non-urgent, and used cumulative distribution curves to compare transfer duration by urgency. We explored the effect of distance for transfers from FMUs and described outcomes in women giving birth within 60 minutes of transfer.ResultsThe median overall transfer time, from decision to transfer to first OU assessment, was shorter in transfers from home compared with transfers from FMUs (49 vs 60 minutes; p < 0.001). The median duration of transfers before birth for potentially urgent reasons (home 42 minutes, FMU 50 minutes) was 8–10 minutes shorter compared with transfers for non-urgent reasons. In transfers for potentially urgent reasons, the median overall transfer time from FMUs within 20 km of an OU was 47 minutes, increasing to 55 minutes from FMUs 20-40 km away and 61 minutes in more remote FMUs. In women who gave birth within 60 minutes after transfer, adverse neonatal outcomes occurred in 1-2% of transfers.ConclusionsTransfers from home or FMU commonly take up to 60 minutes from decision to transfer, to first assessment in an OU, even for transfers for potentially urgent reasons. Most transfers are not urgent and emergencies and adverse outcomes are uncommon, but urgent transfer is more likely for nulliparous women.

No abstract

Glutamic acid decarboxylase autoantibodies may aid in rapid screening strategies predicting IDDM before clinical onset. Rat islets contain GAD65 and GAD67 autoantibody targets, but human islets express only GAD65, now confirmed by direct immunoprecipitation from radiolabeled rat and human islets. Because human IDDM involves beta-cell-specific autoimmunity, we tested 190 new IDDM patients and 51 healthy control subjects for antibodies to recombinant human islet GAD65, rat islet GAD67, or human insulinoma/cerebellum GAD67, each expressed separately in hamster fibroblasts. By using immunoprecipitation, sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, and densitometric fluorogram scanning, 132 of 190 (70%) of new IDDM patients had GAD65 autoantibodies, whereas only 17 of 190 (9%) had antibodies to rat GAD67 (P < 0.001). Of healthy control subjects, 2 of 51 (3.9%) and 1 of 51 (1.9%) had antibodies to GAD65 and GAD67, respectively. All 17 GAD67 antibody-positive patients also had GAD65 antibodies; 14 of 17 with greater GAD65 than GAD67 index. Control studies showed comparable reactivity between recombinant rat and human GAD67 and between different subcellular preparations of recombinant GAD67 of either species. In conclusion, only GAD65 is expressed in human islets, the autoantibody response is primarily to this isoform, and GAD67 antibodies add little to IDDM detection.

BackgroundEvidence from the Birthplace in England Research Programme supported a policy of offering ‘low risk’ women a choice of birth setting, but a number of unanswered questions remained.AimsThis project aimed to provide further evidence to support the development and delivery of maternity services and inform women’s choice of birth setting: specifically, to explore maternal and organisational factors associated with intervention, transfer and other outcomes in each birth setting in ‘low risk’ and ‘higher risk’ women.DesignFive component studies using secondary analysis of the Birthplace prospective cohort study (studies 2–5) and ecological analysis of unit/NHS trust-level data (studies 1 and 5).SettingObstetric units (OUs), alongside midwifery units (AMUs), freestanding midwifery units (FMUs) and planned home births in England.ParticipantsStudies 1–4 focused on ‘low risk’ women with ‘term’ pregnancies planning vaginal birth in 43 AMUs (n = 16,573), in 53 FMUs (n = 11,210), at home in 147 NHS trusts (n = 16,632) and in a stratified, random sample of 36 OUs (n = 19,379) in 2008–10. Study 5 focused on women with pre-existing medical and obstetric risk factors (‘higher risk’ women).Main outcome measuresInterventions (instrumental delivery, intrapartum caesarean section), a measure of low intervention (‘normal birth’), a measure of spontaneous vaginal birth without complications (‘straightforward birth’), transfer during labour and a composite measure of adverse perinatal outcome (‘intrapartum-related mortality and morbidity’ or neonatal admission within 48 hours for > 48 hours). In studies 1 and 3, rates of intervention/maternal outcome and transfer were adjusted for maternal characteristics.AnalysisWe used (a) funnel plots to explore variation in rates of intervention/maternal outcome and transfer between units/trusts, (b) simple, weighted linear regression to evaluate associations between unit/trust characteristics and rates of intervention/maternal outcome and transfer, (c) multivariable Poisson regression to evaluate associations between planned place of birth, maternal characteristics and study outcomes, and (d) logistic regression to investigate associations between time of day/day of the week and study outcomes.ResultsStudy 1 – unit-/trust-level variations in rates of interventions, transfer and maternal outcomes were not explained by differences in maternal characteristics. The magnitude of identified associations between unit/trust characteristics and intervention, transfer and outcome rates was generally small, but some aspects of configuration were associated with rates of transfer and intervention. Study 2 – ‘low risk’ women planning non-OU birth had a reduced risk of intervention irrespective of ethnicity or area deprivation score. In nulliparous women planning non-OU birth the risk of intervention increased with increasing age, but women of all ages planning non-OU birth experienced a reduced risk of intervention. Study 3 – parity, maternal age, gestational age and ‘complicating conditions’ identified at the start of care in labour were independently associated with variation in the risk of transfer in ‘low risk’ women planning non-OU birth. Transfers did not vary by time of day/day of the week in any meaningful way. The duration of transfer from planned FMU and home births was around 50–60 minutes; transfers for ‘potentially urgent’ reasons were quicker than transfers for ‘non-urgent’ reasons. Study 4 – the occurrence of some interventions varied by time of the day/day of the week in ‘low risk’ women planning OU birth. Study 5 – ‘higher risk’ women planning birth in a non-OU setting had fewer risk factors than ‘higher risk’ women planning OU birth and these risk factors were different. Compared with ‘low risk’ women planning home birth, ‘higher risk’ women planning home birth had a significantly increased risk of our composite adverse perinatal outcome measure. However, in ‘higher risk’ women, the risk of this outcome was lower in planned home births than in planned OU births, even after adjustment for clinical risk factors.ConclusionsExpansion in the capacity of non-OU intrapartum care could reduce intervention rates in ‘low risk’ women, and the benefits of midwifery-led intrapartum care apply to all ‘low risk’ women irrespective of age, ethnicity or area deprivation score. Intervention rates differ considerably between units, however, for reasons that are not understood. The impact of major changes in the configuration of maternity care on outcomes should be monitored and evaluated. The impact of non-clinical factors, including labour ward practices, staffing and skill mix and women’s preferences and expectations, on intervention requires further investigation. All women planning non-OU birth should be informed of their chances of transfer and, in particular, older nulliparous women and those more than 1 week past their due date should be advised of their increased chances of transfer. No change in the guidance on planning place of birth for ‘higher risk’ women is recommended, but research is required to evaluate the safety of planned AMU birth for women with selected relatively common risk factors.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Objectives To evaluate the impact of maternal BMI on intrapartum interventions and adverse outcomes that may influence choice of planned birth setting in healthy women without additional risk factors.Design Prospective cohort study.Setting Stratified random sample of English obstetric units.Sample 17 230 women without medical or obstetric risk factors other than obesity.Methods Multivariable log Poisson regression was used to evaluate the effect of BMI on risk of intrapartum interventions and adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes adjusted for maternal characteristics.Main outcome measures Maternal intervention or adverse outcomes requiring obstetric care (composite of: augmentation, instrumental delivery, intrapartum caesarean section, general anaesthesia, blood transfusion, 3rd/4th degree perineal tear); neonatal unit admission or perinatal death.Results In otherwise healthy women, obesity was associated with an increased risk of augmentation, intrapartum caesarean section and some adverse maternal outcomes but when interventions and outcomes requiring obstetric care were considered together, the magnitude of the increased risk was modest (adjusted RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.02–1.23, for BMI > 35 kg/m2 relative to low risk women of normal weight). Nulliparous low risk women of normal weight had higher absolute risks and were more likely to require obstetric intervention or care than otherwise healthy multiparous women with BMI > 35 kg/m2 (maternal composite outcome: 53% versus 21%). The perinatal composite outcome exhibited a similar pattern.Conclusions Otherwise healthy multiparous obese women may have lower intrapartum risks than previously appreciated. BMI should be considered in conjunction with parity when assessing the potential risks associated with birth in non-obstetric unit settings.